Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[Aepervius]

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.

You never heard of the null hypothesis right ? The above is not a fallacy. A cryptid is assumed to not exists (ull) until evidence of its existence is brought. The problem is that evidence of existence has a meaning in biology which do include certain criteria for a new species.... And bigfoot do not meet them.

4) Special Pleading

"No other film like the PGF has surfaced since 1967, therefore, the PGF isn't evidence for the existence of Bigfoot." or "The film doesn't qualify as evidence."

Moving the goalpost after the claim of there not being any evidence has been shown to be false.

See above. PGF is very doubtful as a scientific evidence and that's the problem : no biologist worth its salt would accept it due to its provenance, and the biological detail which are very consistent with a human into a suit. You think PGF is an evidence , but from biologist POV it almost certainly is not, because there is a lot of alternative explanation which would be more probable. It is a bit like UFO film really. Or the Surgeon film with nessie : that was accepted as evidence by cryptid believer.... And it was an hoax. That is why the film is not acceptable as evidence of a new species. it is not moving the goalpost it is maintaining the standard of evidence...

5) Genetic

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

No it is not, when the point is that it could be an hoax far more likely than it is real.

The way you want science function, somebody doing special effect could pretend that he filmed real giant saurian, and we would HAVE to accept it as evidence. That is not how it works.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

This is from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


The Burden of Proof Principle

"Just as a person is held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive OR negative claim about something has what's called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always always challenged to defend our claims.

To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance", for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are setting yourself up for a win by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument that's given in support of it."

 

[abaddon]

This is from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


The Burden of Proof Principle

"Just as a person is held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive OR negative claim about something has what's called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always always challenged to defend our claims.

To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance", for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are setting yourself up for a win by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument that's given in support of it."

And? Are you not undermining every argument you have made here?

 

[Donn]

And? Are you not undermining every argument you have made here?

Exactly. Pro foot arguments have a matchbox full of stasis. Anti arguments have a planet full of interlocking evidence which leaves no room for Bigfoot.

It's not an argument from ignorance, it's a demonstration from absence.

 

[Donn]

This is from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


The Burden of Proof Principle

"Just as a person is held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive OR negative claim about something has what's called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always always challenged to defend our claims.

To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance", for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are setting yourself up for a win by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument that's given in support of it."

Thank you for your great support for Fairy Freedom. Too long have the Fey been relegated to myth and sock darning for sour milk.

 

[The Atheist]

You can say it, but you sure can't spell it.

Damn, I hate that.

I can spell it alright, but my finger synchronisation needs work.

 

[Donn]

I could have sworn this thread was about skepticism. It will become biology when one is found. (ie never)

So, you have also decided then?

This is a discussion forum, not a biology lab.

I wondered where all the blood and fluids were.

See above re: biology. If people are applying for sasquatch to be listed as a species, just ignore them. Who on earth is going to listen?

Sounding rather vehement.

Nope; that's just how it reads. Pompous and belittling.

Just a little of same.

What the heck does intellectual integrity have to do with a discussion forum?

Apparently: nothing. I too, foolishly, aimed for integrity. What a burden to shuck!

Etcetera.

Look, The Atheist, I don't know what your point is. Is it the tone? Are we to not argue agin the footers at all? Do we simply shrug and post ellipses?

 

[abaddon]

Damn, I hate that.

I can spell it alright, but my finger synchronisation needs work.

Meh. Everyone gets a rush of blood to the fingers once in a while. No biggie.

 

[Dinwar]

I could have sworn this thread was about skepticism. It will become biology when one is found. (ie never)

Skepticism is opposed to science? Or perhaps, skepticism is permitted to ignore science? Whatever; there's no way for you to escape from the consequences of this statement, which are: you have admitted to being willing to ignore science in favor of attacking a group you dispise. You, sir, are a zealot.

You merely want to ignore the simple facts of the matter. This whole issue boils down to "Is there a novel ape in North America?" This is inherently a biological question--and as with any naming of new species, this involves taxonomy. Taxonomy has rules--rules which, to be rational (or even coherent) the bigfoot crowd must follow. Just like anyone else naming a new species.

This is a discussion forum, not a biology lab.

And I care why? I've made these arguments to scientists in bars. I've made them around a campfire at my parents' house. Pointing out the rules of biological nomenclature in informal settings is part of science. Pointing them out to show that someone has failed to follow them, and therefore their arguments don't rise to the level of being necessary to deal with, is even more so.

The ICZN gives the minimum standards the bigfooters need to achieve. The rules for establishing a new species need to be followed in order for anyone to even consider--not accept, but to CONSIDER--bigfoot as real, because if it were it would be a new species. That is, as far as any scientific analysis is concerned, THE important point. I have no idea why you are so ademant about dismissing that.

See above re: biology. If people are applying for sasquatch to be listed as a species, just ignore them. Who on earth is going to listen?

You know nothing about biology, that's apparent. The ICZN is there to provide a framework for these types of discussions (among others). If they follow the rules we are obliged to at least address the issue. Not the most efficient way to do things, but it keeps folks from breaking out the dynomite.

Nope; that's just how it reads. Pompous and belittling.

No. I was explaining how science addresses the reputation of its practitioners. If you find that pompous and belittling, that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm just reporting the facts.

What the heck does intellectual integrity have to do with a discussion forum?

That says it all. You are willing to abandon intellectual integrity. I am not. You really need to considerr this.

I'm not going to continue going point-by-point through all this dreck. It seems you have a real hatred for bigfoot believers, and are willing to dismiss science in order to attack them--and to attack anyone who doesn't follow your brand of argument. Your hatred in no way obliges me--or anyone else who actually understands what's involved--to take this sort of ignorant, dominearing nonsense seriously.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is waffling of bollocks going to become some meme like "event horizon of the formless"?

More like potato-dicsing, I think...

"Ought everyone to waffle their own bollocks?"

 

[Aepervius]

This is from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


The Burden of Proof Principle

"Just as a person is held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive OR negative claim about something has what's called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always always challenged to defend our claims.

To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance", for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are setting yourself up for a win by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument that's given in support of it."

I am sorry to burst your bubble but the above is only valid when you have a negative or positive claim against the null. The problem is that you want FIRST to redefine the null as "bigfoot exists" THEN you want the negative goes against that.

But this is not how it happens. The null is always by default in absence of anything the null.
FIRST you provide existence bigfoot exists in sufficient quantity that the null shift to "bigfoot exists". THEN only after you will have a point about negative claim having the burden. But until the first point is done, your "burden of proof" point is empty of basis.

And that is what you are missing : you still haven't got past the first point where the null is : that cryptid dos not exists.

 

[jaydeehess]

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."
.

You have this backwards. Bigfoot proponents claim it exists. That is an affirmative claim against the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.
If I say that its existence is not proven I am not saying that it does not exist, just that no one has shown definitive evidence that it does. Lacking proof or sufficient evidence of its existence, the null is that it does not exist.

So far the probability of it not existing is greater than the probability that it does exist. That is the context with which to view the statements about the fact that in over 400 years of European exploration of this continent, no specimen has ever been killed or captured.

The exact same thing applies to the Loch Ness monster or other mythical beasties.

 

[Dinwar]

This is from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


The Burden of Proof Principle

"Just as a person is held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive OR negative claim about something has what's called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always always challenged to defend our claims.

To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance", for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are setting yourself up for a win by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument that's given in support of it."

I have that book! In fact, I've READ that book!

I recommend you also read "Asking the Right Questions". Dr. Keeley is awesome; Dr. Brown and I....do not get along. But I have the utmost respect for him as an epistemologist. Anyway, you'll find that while you've probably accurately quoted this book (I don't have it here just now), you've misunderstood two things:

First, biology isn't normal argument. This is where The Athesit and you both agree and both fail. Biology has its own formal set of rules--the ICZN--and you need to follow them.

Second, we HAVE evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot. A fair amount actually. The complete and utter lack of bigfoot remains is evidence. We know what ape fossils and remains look like in the field, and we know how to find them. The fact that we haven't, after several hundred years, is evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot. Ecology is as well; there's simply not ecological room for an ape. And so on. So we've met our burden of proof. You, however, have not--you need to provide a type specimen, or we can dismiss your conclusions as insufficiently evidenced.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

How intriguing. Would you be willing to waffle my bollocks? Would money have to change hands? What has this to do with bigfoot, the topic at hand? Does bigfoot offer such a service of bollock waffling? Where does it advertise?

ETA: Enquiring minds want to know.

Waffle - slang for chat.
Bollocks - slang for testicles.

Now, can you tell me what the process of chatting testicles doesn't have to do with Bigfoot? If you want someone to feel your plums then you've come to the wrong lad, mate.

 

[Giordano]

OntarioSquatch,

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

But thanks for helping to clarify the "logic" by which Bigfoot advocates have come to believe that Bigfoot is very likely real. In the past I found this hard to understand, but you have clarified how you (at least) see proof and evidence.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Possibly a future Olympic event.

Gold medal bollock wobbler. The silver medalist was insufficiently wobbly, and the bronze medalist was simply wasting our time.

Now you're wobbling the bollocks?? I think it's safe to say that you're thinking way too long and hard about bollocks, fella.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Righto, to continue:



I used to, but I got sick and tired of people displaying how clever they were by creatively abusing people who think bigfoot is real.
Hey, this next bit is hilarious, keep going!



I agree that these tactics are abusive, but as far as I can tell not a single one was made by a bigfoot supporter.

Read 'em and weep:













I think that's where I say quod erat demosntrandum.

And? What on earth is your point? You can see plenty of similar posts from believers in many of the appropriate threads on this very website. If you're trying to make out like anyone should feel guilty for laughing at this utter tripe, then all I can say is LOL.

This isn't about making people feel bad, or trying to shatter a simple man's dream. It's about being a fully-grown human adult who can laugh at obvious nonsense in the same way he/she can laugh at an obvious joke. If this isn't an obvious joke, then I hereby ask that anyone starting another Bigfoot thread please begin it with a "Knock Knock..."

 

[abaddon]

More like potato-dicsing, I think...

"Ought everyone to waffle their own bollocks?"

Stoppit. You are messing with my brain.

 

[truethat]

Yeah but because we know the origins of Big Foot are FICTION then we can't move forward pretending fiction is a possibility.

Otherwise we'd have allow for the possibility that Transformers could really exist too.

 

[The Atheist]

Look, The Atheist, I don't know what your point is. Is it the tone? Are we to not argue agin the footers at all? Do we simply shrug and post ellipses?

Not at all. All that's needed is a little less vitriol, which I see the vast majority of coming from the skeptical side.

You did see the list I posted? And that was from just page one of this thread.

This thread's a very good example. I only joined in because some of the points made in the OP are 100% correct.

You want intellectual integrity? Ask your fellow posters to avoid logical fallacies when dealing with bigfoot discussions.

Take a look at this bucket of emotion:

Whatever; there's no way for you to escape from the consequences of this statement, which are: you have admitted to being willing to ignore science in favor of attacking a group you dispise. You, sir, are a zealot.

Yep, that makes perfect sense.

I love the way examples of what I am trying to point out litter the path like manna from heaven. I couldn't have even thought that up as a strawman, so bloody well played!

You merely want to ignore the simple facts of the matter.

Never.

The facts are very simple. Bigfoot supporters believe it exists.

There is no evidence.

The end.

This whole issue boils down to "Is there a novel ape in North America?" This is inherently a biological question--and as with any naming of new species, this involves taxonomy. Taxonomy has rules--rules which, to be rational (or even coherent) the bigfoot crowd must follow. Just like anyone else naming a new species.

Oh, please cut the baloney. The idea of biology never enters the head of 99% of bigfoot supporters.

You are attacking a strawman. Even though there are some on the sasquatch side who call biology, they are the extreme minority.

What you're doing is identical to saying all christians are scum because Fred Phelps.

And I care why? I've made these arguments to scientists in bars. I've made them around a campfire at my parents' house. Pointing out the rules of biological nomenclature in informal settings is part of science. Pointing them out to show that someone has failed to follow them, and therefore their arguments don't rise to the level of being necessary to deal with, is even more so.

Mate, give yourself a hearty pat on the back.

The lengths scientists will go to in the name of truth.

The ICZN gives the minimum standards the bigfooters need to achieve. The rules ....

The rules, the capitalisation, the wall of text...

Your vehemence is showing, if not your coherence.

This is sensational stuff, by the way. This is * checks OP * yep, a discussion about logical fallacies in skepticism. It is in the skepticism section.

I haven't got a clue what you're so worked up about, but it's an outstanding example of emotion on a subject not worth a dime.

It seems you have a real hatred for bigfoot believers, and are willing to dismiss science in order to attack them-...

Gosh, I hope you can explain what on earth you mean here, because it appears to be entirely paradoxical and/or completely wrong.

One of my best mates is a believer in bigfoot. Penny the female sasquatch, to be precise, and I never dismiss science, nor have I suggested it.

As above, your posts are incoherent.

I don't wonder why.

... dominearing nonsense seriously.

Two things:

1 It's "domineering"

2 Check the posts and tell me which ones are domineering, especially when compared to thine own.

And? What on earth is your point? You can see plenty of similar posts from believers in many of the appropriate threads on this very website. If you're trying to make out like anyone should feel guilty for laughing at this utter tripe, then all I can say is LOL.

This isn't about making people feel bad, or trying to shatter a simple man's dream. It's about being a fully-grown human adult who can laugh at obvious nonsense in the same way he/she can laugh at an obvious joke. If this isn't an obvious joke, then I hereby ask that anyone starting another Bigfoot thread please begin it with a "Knock Knock..."

Funny, none of the bits I quoted were all that funny, although the sarcastic one was almost amusing.

Laughing is fine; sarcasm is excellent.

"Nutjob" tends to work against the writer rather than the subject.

Shall we get back to logical fallacies now?